Full Judgment
2. The appellants are contesting the modvat credit disallowed on the items namely dehumidifier, (sub-heading No. 8479.10), Dust collection system (8479. 10), SS Ducting for GAC 1500 (sub-heading 8479.10), expanded polystyrene sheets (subheading 3921.19) TD Traps, klinger scatless piston valves and 'A' type Diapharm valves all falling under subheading 8481.80 and steel pellets (sub-heading 7308.90). Shri B.S.Seshagiri Rao learned consultant appearing for the appellants pleaded the dehumidifier is used for controlling moisture and to remove dust from manufacturing area to prevent cross contamination and to keep manufacturing area clean with required room standard. He said that the issue is already covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. 2002 (132) ELT 3 SC, : 2001 (97) ECR 541 (SC) Lupin Laboratories Ltd., v. CCB and CCE, Coimbatore v. SSPB Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. 2001 (137) ELT 1188 (T).
Regarding dust collection system, he pleaded that it is used for controlling dust. The issue has already been covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Lloyds Metals and Engg. Ltd. 2004 (91) ECC 61 (T), - 2004 (112) ECR 466 (T) and Maihar Cement v. CCE 2001 (125) ELT 629 (T), and CCE v. Shree Cement Ltd. .
Similarly he pleaded that SS Ducting is accessory for the machine used for manufacture of the goods and the issue has already been covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case Mukerian Papers Ltd. v. CCB 1999 (33) RLT 863 (T), Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. CCB and confirmed by the Supreme Court in . Regarding the Expanded Polysterene Sheet, these are used as insulating material leading to MFG area to maintain optimum temperature and sterility. The issue is covered by the decision in the case of Zuari Cement v. CCE Grasim Industries v. CCE 2001 (137) ELT 134 (T) : 2001 (96) ECR 680 (T) and CCE v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. 2001 (115) ELT 579 (T). He further pleaded that TD Traps, klinger piston valves and diapharm valves are used to remove pipe line which flow steam into.
He referred to the decision in the case Maihar Cement Ltd. v. CCE 2000 (125) ELT 629 (T), Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore 2003 (111) ECR 500 and Board Circular 276/110/96-CE. Regarding steel pellets he pleaded that these are used for storage of processed goods and to avoid cross contamination and damage to the product. He relied on the decision in case of CCE v. Carborandum Universal Ltd. and Chandras Chemical Enterprises Ltd. v. CCE 2001 (45) RLT 209. He therefore pleaded that in view of the settled legal position, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 183/2001 (H-I) CE dated 23.12.2001 may be set aside allowing the credit to the appellants.
3. Shri L. Narasimha Murthy learned SDR appearing for the revenue pleaded that in all these cases where credit was disallowed, the issue relates to a period prior to 23.7.1996 and the goods are covered for allowance of the credit by the various decisions as relied upon by the appellants. He therefore pleaded that he has nothing more to say in this case.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides.
We find that the items in dispute on which the credit was disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are covered by the various decisions of the Tribunal and the matter, is no longer res Integra. Therefore, the credit disallowed to the appellants on the above said items in dispute is allowed and the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing the credit on the above said items are set aside.